Decision-making depends on language: A meta-analysis of the Foreign ...

[Pages:14]Bilingualism: Language and Decision-making depends on language: A

Cognition

meta-analysis of the Foreign Language Effect

bil

Nicola Del Maschio1 , Federico Crespi2, Francesca Peressotti3, Jubin Abutalebi1,4 and Simone Sulpizio2,5

Research Article

Cite this article: Del Maschio N, Crespi F, Peressotti F, Abutalebi J, Sulpizio S (2022). Decision-making depends on language: A meta-analysis of the Foreign Language Effect. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 25, 617?630. S1366728921001012 Received: 28 January 2021 Revised: 22 October 2021 Accepted: 22 October 2021 First published online: 2 February 2022 Keywords: Foreign-language effect; bilingualism; metaanalysis; emotion; decision-making Address for correspondence: Simone Sulpizio, Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo, 1?20126 Milano, Italy, email: simone.sulpizio@unimib.it

? The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.

1Centre for Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics (CNPL), Faculty of Psychology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; 2Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan Italy; 3Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy; 4The Arctic University of Norway, Troms?, Norway and 5Milan Center for Neuroscience (NeuroMi), University of Milano-Bicocca Milan, Italy

Abstract

In the present meta-analysis, we investigated the robustness and the magnitude of the Foreign Language Effect (FLE) ? that is, the putative effect of language context (native versus foreign language) on decision-making. We also investigated whether the FLE is moderated by language experience ? measured by second language age of acquisition and proficiency ? or by methodological choices ? the types of decision problems adopted, the presentation modality of the tasks administered, and the perspective in which problems are framed. Our results showed a reliable FLE, which was not moderated by language experience or methodological choices. We discuss our findings in relation to available theories of FLE, and indicate possible future directions to improve our understanding of the interplay between bilingualism and decision-making.

Introduction

As decision-makers in complex and volatile scenarios, we are constantly faced with the need to choose between alternative courses of action based on probabilistic cues and conflicting information. In addition to individual difference variables (e.g., demographic characteristics, cognitive ability, decision-making styles), psychological research has recently indicated that the language in which decisions are made is a contextual factor able to influence decision outcomes. In particular, systematically different choices have been reported when decision problems are presented in a native (L1) vs a foreign (L2) language. The systematic effect of language context on decision making has been termed Foreign Language Effect (FLE) (Keysar, Hayakawa & An, 2012).

Given that decisions are frequently presented to people in a second language in modern globalized societies, the implications of FLE for socio-economic and public health policies are obviously far-reaching. It has even been proposed that language could be used as a "nudge" to improve people's decisions and guide interventions of policy makers (e.g., Costa, Vives & Corey, 2017). As appealing as this prospect may seem, however, the robustness, the magnitude, and the etiology of the FLE across extant research are yet to be tested. A meta-analysis on the current state of the literature would help setting the perimeter of the phenomenon, while exploring the potential contribution of moderator variables. Here, we present a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies on FLE on decision-making under conditions of risk and moral conflict.

A FLE was documented in decision-making involving risky prospects, where the decision maker cannot predict the outcome of a choice but knows the probabilities of all outcomes for alternative options (e.g., Hadjichristidis, Geipel & Savadori, 2015; Winskel, Ratitamkul, Brambley, Nagarachinda & Tiencharoen, 2016). One of the most popular paradigms in studies on the FLE on decision-making under risk is the Asian Disease Problem (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). In this paradigm, the decision maker is confronted with a situation in which people can be saved from a pandemic disease by choosing between two alternative medicines. Although the consequences of the choice are identical in terms of number of saved lives, participants presented with one of two versions of the problem appear risk-seeking ? i.e., they favor the riskier option ? when the choice is framed in terms of losses (e.g., "400.000 out of 600.000 people will die"), and risk-averse ? i.e., they favor the safer option ? when the choice is framed in terms of gains (e.g., "200.000 out of 600.000 people will be saved"). This FRAMING EFFECT ? the systematic tendency to make choices based on the form in which options are presented ? has been shown to diminish when using an L2 (Costa, Foucart, Arnon, Aparici & Apesteguia, 2014a; Keysar et al., 2012).

A FLE was documented also in moral dilemmas (e.g., Costa et al., 2014a; Geipel, Hadjichristidis & Surian, 2015a), where the decision maker can usually predict the outcome of a choice, knows the probabilities of all outcomes for alternative options, but is "pulled in

Published online by Cambridge University Press

618

Nicola Del Maschio et al.

contrary directions by rival moral reasons" (Christensen & Gomila, 2012, p. 1251). For example, in the Footbridge Dilemma (Foot, 1978), an innocent bystander on a footbridge must be sacrificed to save five workers on a track from an out-of-control trolley moving in their direction. The decision maker, who must choose between sacrificing or not sacrificing the bystander, is confronted with two options: a) rejecting harm despite failing to maximize the number of saved lives, in accordance with the deontological perspective that the morality of actions is based on their intrinsic nature; b) maximizing the number of saved lives despite deliberately committing a harmful act, in accordance with the utilitarian perspective that the morality of actions is based on their outcomes. Whilst most respondents choose not to kill the bystander, utilitarian behavior has been reported to increase when the dilemma is presented in an L2 (e.g., Brouwer, 2019; Cipolletti, McFarlane & Weissglass, 2016; Geipel et al., 2015a).

Several explanatory hypotheses have been proposed to account for the FLE. In the following section, we synthesize the main ones.

Etiology of the FLE

Enhanced cognitive control

Dual-system theories in decision-making (e.g., Kahneman, 2003) and moral psychology (e.g., Greene, Morelli, Lowenberg, Nystrom & Cohen, 2008) propose that two systems are involved in decisionmaking processes: a fast, automatic, intuitive, and largely emotiondriven system (System 1), and a slower, systematic, deliberative and cognitively-controlled system that is also more effortful (System 2). According to Kahneman (2011), every contextual feature that increases mental stress or cognitive load, such as processing problems in a foreign language, could favor System 2 processes and/or reduce the influence of System 1 (but see Conway & Gawronski, 2013, who reported that cognitive load reduced participants' utilitarian inclinations). Therefore, the FLE would be associated to a reduced reliance on System 1 and/or to an increased reliance on System 2. In particular, a foreign language context would promote the types of cognitive-controlled mechanisms that support more analytical appraisals and utilitarian decisions. The enhanced cognitive control hypothesis seems to suggest that the FLE will be beneficial to reasoning (or, at worst, neutral) in most circumstances. However, some results have disconfirmed this prediction (e.g., Geipel, Hadjichristidis & Surian, 2016), also showing that a foreign language context does not necessarily reduce cognitive biases when participants are presented with emotionally neutral tasks (e.g., Geipel et al., 2015a; M?kel? & Pfuhl, 2019; Vives, Aparici & Costa, 2018). Moreover, using a process-dissociation approach, Hayakawa, Tannenbaum, Costa, Corey and Keysar (2017) reported that a foreign language reduced deontological inclinations and did not increase utilitarian tendencies. By interpreting these findings as a result of a dissociation process, the authors suggested that a foreign language may affect moral choice not through increased deliberation, but by dampening emotional reactions associated with the violation of deontological rules. Using the same process-dissociation approach, other studies reported that, when processing moral dilemmas in a foreign language, participants showed reduced levels of both utilitarian and deontological inclinations (Bialek, Paruzel-Czachura & Gawronski, 2019; Muda, Niszczota, Bialek & Conway, 2018).

Reduced emotionality

Another hypothesis is that the FLE would depend on the reduced emotionality of decision-making contexts when these are framed

in a foreign language. There is a two-step argument behind this hypothesis. On the one hand, emotions would promote intuitive, gut-feeling decisions that might cause biased reasoning (Greene, Nystrom, Engell, Darley & Cohen, 2004; Haidt, 2007). On the other hand, there is evidence for weakened emotional responses while processing an L2 (for reviews, see Caldwell-Harris, 2015; Pavlenko, 2017). On these grounds, the reduced emotionality account proposes that actively thinking in a foreign language would lead to decisions that are less distorted by emotional reactions (e.g., Keysar et al., 2012). The relative emotionality of a native vs a foreign language has been argued to be modulated by factors such as age of acquisition (AoA), language proficiency, language use and immersion, and (emotional) context of learning (Caldwell-Harris, 2015; Degner, Doycheva & Wentura, 2012; Dewaele, 2010; Sheikh & Titone, 2016). Recent findings also suggest that the extent to which the FLE occurs in proficient bilinguals can be influenced by the modality in which moral dilemmas are presented (auditory vs written) (Brouwer, 2019, 2020). Brouwer (2020), for example, reported an effect of foreign language when a sample of Dutch?English bilinguals listened to moral dilemmas in Dutch or English, but failed to report an effect when a different sample of Dutch?English bilinguals read the same dilemmas. One might speculate that the oral modality is the one through which language is learnt by children and most commonly used for day-to-day communication. Therefore, accessing semantic information through speech in L1 vs L2 may elicit a stronger emotional response in L1 than L2. Conversely, these differences may decrease when the same information is accessed and processed in a written format.

Reduced access to social norms

It was originally assumed that the framing effect of language would be visible only in case of emotionally-grounded biases (e.g., Costa et al., 2014a). However, optimal vs suboptimal decisions associated ? respectively ? with L2 and L1 may not necessarily depend on emotional distance. For example, emotion and FLE were recently dissociated in a study by Miozzo, Navarrete, Ongis, Mello, Girotto and Peressotti (2020), who showed that proficiently spoken Italian and Venetian (a regional language of Italy) elicited similar emotional responses, but yielded different decisions on both the Asian Disease Problem and the Footbridge Dilemma. As suggested by Geipel et al. (2015a, b), the discrepant decisions induced by native and foreign languages may also be due to a reduced accessibility of normative knowledge in foreign languages. It has been argued that individuals are usually exposed to normative knowledge early in life through social interactions mediated by their native language. Since episodic memories have been shown to include a trace of the language of encoding (e.g., Marian & Neisser, 2000; Schrauf & Rubin, 2000), a moral conflict presented in L1 may trigger greater language-dependent access to sociocultural and moral norms than a conflict presented in L2.

Potential moderating factors of the FLE magnitude

Foreign language effects were not reported ubiquitously in the literature. The inconsistency among previous studies may depend upon a number of factors. Here, we identified two groups of factors that could influence the magnitude of the FLE: 1) participants' bilingual background; and 2) methodological design features.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition

619

Participants' bilingual background

The FLE may be influenced by variability along the main quantifiable dimensions in which bilingual experience can be partitioned (i.e., L2 AoA, L2 proficiency, L2 exposure). Differences in bilinguals' language background are known to affect bilingual language processing (for review, see Del Maschio & Abutalebi, 2019). It is therefore reasonable to hypothesize that differences in L2 experience will also modulate processing differences in decision-making when using the L1 vs an L2, with repercussions on the FLE. A role of L2 AoA in modulating language framing has been posited by emotion-based explanations of language effects (e.g., Costa et al., 2014a), as well as by accounts that hypothesize a reduced accessibility of normative knowledge through foreign languages (e.g., Geipel, Hadjichristidis & Surian, 2015b). Under both accounts, no FLE is expected when both languages are acquired early in similar contexts. On the one hand, a language learned in childhood should be especially emotional due to the emotional contexts of learning that are pervasive in childhood (see Caldwell-Harris, 2015). On the other hand, the occurrence of a FLE in e.g. a group of sequential bilinguals who learned their second language at school, compared to, say, a group of early or simultaneous bilinguals, may be attributable to a reduced access to moral and social norms when using the foreign language (Geipel et al., 2015a, 2015b). Another factor which has been proposed to modulate the FLE is L2 proficiency. Since emotional responses are expected to be equally intense with equally proficient languages (e.g., Anooshian & Hertel, 1994; Dewaele, 2004; Pavlenko, 2017), emotionally-grounded effects of language framing would tend to decrease in proficient L2 speakers. Alternatively, the cognitive load associated with processing problems in a foreign language would simply be reduced in fluent bilinguals, resulting in smaller differences in decision-making with a native and a foreign language (see Hayakawa et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the absence of the FLE in early and proficient bilinguals is debated (see Bialek & Fugelsang, 2019; Brouwer, 2020; Dylman & Champoux-Larsson, 2020; Miozzo et al., 2020). It is also possible that the relative frequency of daily use of L1 and L2 may affect the FLE. Even if the number of studies in the FLE literature that have specifically addressed this question is scarce, one may expect the FLE to decrease in bilingual individuals who are used to frequently dealing with decision problems in an L2. Conversely, situations in which the same problems are not faced with the same frequency in L1 and L2 should lead to a stronger FLE.

Methodological design features

In addition to the linguistic profile of bilingual participants, inconsistent results may also depend upon methodological design features of individual studies. Methodological choices include the types of problems adopted (i.e., decision problem vs moral dilemma), the presentation modality of the tasks administered to participants (i.e., auditory vs written), and the perspective in which problems are framed (i.e., personal vs impersonal). With regard to putative effects of problem type, facing problems under conditions of risk in L1 vs L2 may elicit different analytic strategies and/or different emotional responses than facing moral dilemmas in L1 vs L2. Different underlying mechanisms regulating decision-making under conditions of risk and moral conflict may be partially responsible for the inconsistency in detecting the FLE across previous studies. The occurrence and magnitude of the FLE may also depend on the modality in

which problems and dilemmas are presented. As previously mentioned (see the Etiology of the FLE), the presentation modality of moral dilemmas has been shown to influence the occurrence of the FLE in proficient bilinguals (Brouwer, 2019, 2020). Another factor that appears to be important for the presence of the FLE is the distinction between personal and impersonal dilemmas. Under an emotion-based account of the language effect, Costa, Foucart, Hayakawa, Aparici, Apesteguia, Heafner, and Keysar (2014b) argued that a foreign language should induce more utilitarian decisions than a native language, and that the FLE may be stronger for personal vs impersonal dilemmas. However, some results have disconfirmed this prediction. For instance, this pattern was not replicated on the (impersonal) Switch dilemma (e.g., Cipolletti et al., 2016; Costa et al., 2014b). Moreover, Geipel et al. (2015b) presented multiple personal and impaersonal dilemmas to participants, and reported that a FLE was present on some impersonal dilemmas and absent on some personal ones. The authors interpreted these findings as indicating that the FLE only occurs when dilemmas violate social or moral norms.

The present study

The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to assess the magnitude of the FLE by integrating behavioral evidence from both decision problems and moral dilemmas. To provide an estimate of the overall size of the FLE is critical, since previous findings about the occurrence and magnitude of the FLE are mixed. A further aim of this work is to examine whether and to what extent factors related to participants' bilingual background (i.e., L2 AoA, L2 proficiency, L2 exposure) and methodological design features (i.e., Problem type, Task modality, Personal/Impersonal distinction) moderate meta-analytic results. Overall, establishing the boundaries and generalizability of FLE may possibly pave the way for a unitary account of the mechanisms underlying the effects of foreign languages on decision processing.

Materials and methods

Data collection and preparation

This meta-analysis is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement guidelines (; Liberati, Altman, Tetzlaff, Mulrow, G?tzsche, Ioannidis, Clarke, Devereaux, Kleijnen & Moher, 2009; Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman & Prisma Group, 2009). PRISMA's goal is to improve the quality and the reliability of systematic reviews and meta-analyses by providing a set of common rules and recommendations for authors. PRISMA guidelines suggest to follow a 27-item checklist and report a flow diagram of the literature search and paper inclusion (Fig. 1). To identify all the available articles on the FLE, we performed an on-line literature search in three different databases ? Scopus, Pubmed, and Web of Science ?, which represent the main resources for psychological research. To be as inclusive as possible, the following input search keywords were used: "foreign language effect OR foreign-language effect". Only studies written in English and published between 2012 and May 2020 were included (no article published before 2012 was found). This first search returned a total of 128 results. After this first step, we looked for any additional undetected article by inspecting the reference lists of the oldest articles (i.e., those published in 2012) or looking for peers' recommendations, and 2 further articles were found.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

620

Nicola Del Maschio et al.

label (e.g., childhood, late) or not reported. With regard to L2 proficiency, there was some heterogeneity in the way it was measured across studies. All studies except one reported subjective measures on a Likert scale. However, there was large variability in the highest value (from 5 to 30). To make the different scales comparable, each proficiency score was normalized using the following formula: (x-a)/(b-a), with x = the to-be-normalized score, a = the minimum value of the scale, b = the maximum value of the scale. Finally, most studies did not provide a quantitative measure of L2 exposure. A qualitative inference seems to suggest that participants had a low L2 exposure in approximately half of the included studies, whereas the exposure was high in the remaining studies.

Fig. 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the literature search (. org/).

From the initial set, we removed the duplicates, obtaining 65 results. A first screening based on title and abstract was independently conducted by two authors based on the following inclusion criteria: 1) empirical studies; 2) healthy adult bilinguals. Only peer-reviewed published journal articles were included. This first screening lead to a total of 50 eligible articles. These articles were then fully read to check whether they satisfied the inclusion criteria, which were extended to include the following: 3) testing the FLE, 4) using decision problems or moral dilemmas. Moreover, some exclusion criteria were also applied at this stage: 1) dependent variables different from the decision taken by participants (e.g., emotional response, degree of perceived morality); 2) presence of qualitative data/analyses only. We did not set any restriction on the specific languages spoken by each bilingual sample. The final sample included 15 articles (see Fig. 1), all multi-experiments studies. We assume that these studies were approved by their respective Ethics Committees prior to data collection.

Data classification

From each study, we aimed at extracting the following pieces of information: sample size, participants' L1 and L2, L2 AoA, L2 proficiency, L2 exposure, Problem type (decision problem or moral dilemma ? the problems and dilemmas of each study are reported in the Supplementary Materials), Task modality (auditory or written), Number of participants performing the task for each language (L1, L2), Number of participants choosing the emotional option for each language (i.e., choice due to a bias in decision problems and deontological choice in moral dilemma), Number of participants opting, in each language, for the unbiased choice in decision problems and the utilitarian choice in moral dilemmas. These pieces of information are reported in Table 1.

In all experiments the manipulation was between-participants. L2 AoA was mostly measured by asking participants to self-report the onset age of L2 learning. In a few cases, it was defined by a

Data analysis

Analyses were run with the meta package (Schwarzer, 2007) and the dmetar package (Harrer, Cuijpers, Furukawa & Ebert, 2019) in the R software (version 3.3.2). To investigate the FLE, we calculated the likelihood ? expressed as Odd Ratio ? to observe the emotional choice when problems were presented in L2 with respect to when they were presented in L11. In other words, for moral dilemmas, we calculated the probability to make the deontologicalchoice in L2 than in L1, whereas for decision problems we calculated the probability to make an emotional choice in L2 than in L1 when the problem is presented in the loss frame condition (e.g., for the Asian disease problem, this corresponds to the 400 people will die option, see Appendix for the full problem; note that this is also the result on which studies in the literature focus). We thus calculated L2 to L1 emotional choice odd ratios and corresponding two-tailed 95% confidence intervals for each experiment and then combined them to provide a pooled odds ratio and test for the overall effect (Z statistic). An odds ratio value greater than 1.0 indicates a higher tendency to opt for an unbiased choice in L2 than in L1, whereas a value equal to 1.0 corresponds to no difference between the two languages.

Because of the large heterogeneity among studies' characteristics (e.g., the problems and dilemmas adopted in each study, in addition to differences related to the participants' bilingual language background), data were analyzed using the Hartung-KnappSidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) mixed-effects model (IntHout, Ioannidis & Borm, 2014). To test for heterogeneity, the Q test and the I2 was considered. The Q test measures variability between the effect sizes in the sample of studies (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). The I2 is an index of the percentage of total variation (between effect sizes) across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance (Higgins & Thompson, 2002). Values of 25%, 50%, and 75% have been described as indicating low, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks & Altman, 2003).

To investigate the presence of possible bias in the dataset, we examined the funnel plot and its asymmetry with the Egger's t test (Egger, Smith, Schneider & Minder, 1997). The funnel plot represents the standard error (i.e., a measure of study precision) against the odd ratios of each individual study. In the absence of publication bias, one would expect the funnel plot be symmetrical with studies symmetrically distributed around the center. An asymmetry, instead, would be suggestive of the presence of a possible bias. In this case, to evaluate the impact of the bias, Duval

1Note that we opted for the emotional/deontological (instead of the rational/utilitarian) decision because it may be easier to interpret also by who is not familiar with the FLE literature

Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included in the analysis.

ID

Author

1 Costa et al.

Year Journal 2014 Cognition

Exp

Problem

1 Asian disease problem

1 Costa et al.

2014 Cognition

1 Asian disease problem

1 Costa et al.

2014 Cognition

2 Discount

1 Costa et al.

2014 Cognition

1 Financial crisis

1 Costa et al.

2014 Cognition

2 Ticket lost

2 Miozzo et al. 2 Miozzo et al. 2 Miozzo et al. 3 Keysar et al.

2020 Cognition 2020 Cognition 2020 Cognition 2012 Psychol Sci

2 Asian disease problem 3 Footbridge dilemma 4 Footbridge dilemma 1a Asian disease problem

3 Keysar et al. 2012 Psychol Sci 1b Asian disease problem

3 Keysar et al. 2012 Psychol Sci 1c Asian disease problem

3 Keysar et al. 2012 Psychol Sci

2 Loss aversion (bets)

3 Keysar et al. 2012 Psychol Sci

3 Loss aversion (bets)

4 Brouwer 4 Brouwer 4 Brouwer 4 Brouwer 4 Brouwer 4 Brouwer 4 Brouwer

2019 J Multiling Multicul

2019 J Multiling Multicul

2019 J Multiling Multicul

2019 J Multiling Multicul

2019 J Multiling Multicul

2019 J Multiling Multicul

2019 J Multiling Multicul

1 Crying baby 2 Crying baby 1 Footbridge dilemma 2 Footbridge dilemma 1 Lost wallet 2 Lost wallet 1 Switch dilemma

Nr PP

Nr PP

Nr PP

L1 Nr PP

L2

L1 E UNB L2 E UNB Age Education

L1

41

21 31

31 20.6 University Spanish

student

20

15 11

19 22.04 University Arab

student

40

30 27

37 20.1 University Spanish

student

31

40 37

43 21 University Spanish

student

64

7 48

22 21 University Spanish

student

32

18 17

30 30.6 NA

Italian

68

43 86

28 41.5 NA

Italian

347

61 316 136 36.6 NA

Italian

17

14 10

20 22 University English

student

6

27 12

17 23 University Korean

student

15

10

4

22 22 University English

student

10

19 13

26 23 University Korean

student

6

8

4

10 19 University English

student

19

11 18

12 27.8 University Dutch

student

7

23

9

21 27.8 University Dutch

student

27

3 19

11 27.8 University Dutch

student

7

23

9

21 27.8 University Dutch

student

26

4 19

11 27.8 University Dutch

student

30

0 24

6 27.8 University Dutch

student

14

16

9

21 29.5 University Dutch

student

L2 English

Task Problem AoA Proficiency Modality Type

7.1 4.9 (7) Written DM

Hebrew

6.2 6.2 (7) Written DM

English

9 4.85 (7) Written DM

English

8 4.75 (7) Written DM

English

8 4.75 (7) Written DM

Venetian

childhood 9.2 (10) Oral

DM

Venetian

childhood 9 (10)

Oral

MD

Bergamasque childhood 8.1 (10) Oral

MD

Japanese

17 4.2 (7) Written DM

English

12 4.4 (10) Written DM

French

16 3.8 (10) Written DM

English

12 3.8 (10) Written DM

Spanish

13 19 (30) Oral

DM

English

19 3.5 (5) Oral

MD

English

19 3.5 (5) Written MD

English

19 3.5 (5) Oral

MD

English

19 3.5 (5) Written MD

English

19 3.5 (5) Oral

MD

English

19 3.5 (5) Written MD

English

19 3.5 (5) Oral

MD (Continued )

621

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition

 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 1. (Continued.)

ID

Author

Year Journal

4 Brouwer 4 Brouwer 4 Brouwer 4 Brouwer 4 Brouwer 5 Cavar & Tytus 5 Cavar & Tytus 5 Cavar & Tytus 5 Cavar & Tytus 5 Cavar & Tytus 5 Cavar & Tytus 6 Winskel et al. 6 Winskel et al. 7 Geipel et al.

2019 J Multiling Multicul

2019 J Multiling Multicul

2019 J Multiling Multicul

2019 J Multiling Multicul

2019 J Multiling Multicul

2018 J Multiling Multicul

2018 J Multiling Multicul

2018 J Multiling Multicul

2018 J Multiling Multicul

2018 J Multiling Multicul

2018 J Multiling Multicul

2016 J Cogn Psychol

2016 J Cogn Psychol

2015 Plos One

7 Geipel et al.

2015 Plos One

7 Geipel et al.

2015 Plos One

7 Geipel et al.

2015 Plos One

7 Geipel et al.

2015 Plos One

7 Geipel et al.

2015 Plos One

Exp

Problem

2 Switch dilemma

1 Taxes

2 Taxes

1 Vitamins

2 vitamins

1 Boat

1 Footbridge dilemma

1 Hostage

1 Soldier

1 Submarine

1 Surgeon

1 Asian disease problem

1 Financial crisis

1a Footbridge dilemma

1b Footbridge dilemma

2 Footbridge dilemma

1a Trolley dilemma

2 Trolley dilemma

1b Trolley dilemma

Nr PP Nr PP Nr PP Nr PP

L1 E

L1 L2 E

L2

UNB

UNB Age Education

L1

2

28

8

22 29.5 University Dutch

student

22

8 13

17 29.5 University dutch

student

23

7 23

7 29.5 University Dutch

student

16

14 18

12 29.5 University Dutch

student

16

14 12

18 29.5 University Dutch

student

16

14 16

14 37.3 Non

Croatian

academic

25

5 23

7 37.3 Non

Croatian

academic

22

8 22

8 37.3 Non

Croatian

academic

19

11 11

19 37.3 Non

Croatian

academic

15

15 17

13 37.3 Non

Croatian

academic

29

1 26

4 37.3 Non

Croatian

academic

32

18 25

27 19.8 University Thai

student

26

24 20

31 19.8 University Thai

student

30

9 21

16 22.08 University Italian

student

30

9 20

9 22.08 University Italian

student

56

6 77

22 22.08 University Chinese

student

18

21 10

27 23.41 University Italian

student

18

21 11

18 23.41 University Italian

student

27

35 43

56 23.41 University Chinese

student

L2 English English English English English German German German German German German English English English German English English German English

Task Problem AoA Proficiency Modality Type

19 3.5 (5) Written MD

19 3.5 (5) Oral

MD

19 3.5 (5) Written MD

19 3.5 (5) Oral

MD

19 3.5 (5) Written MD

9.27 10.4 (12) Written MD

9.27 10.4 (12) Written MD

9.27 10.4 (12) Written MD

9.27 10.4 (12) Written MD

9.27 10.4 (12) Written MD

9.27 10.4 (12) Written MD

7.9 4.4 (10) Written DM

7.7 4.5 (10) Written DM

10.7 3.3 (5) Written MD

13.3 3.8 (5) Written MD

NA 3.1 (5) Written MD

10.7 3.3 (5) Written MD

13.3 3.8 (5) Written MD

NA 3.1 (5) Written MD

Nicola Del Maschio et al.

622

 Published online by Cambridge University Press

8 Hayakawa et al. 2019 Q J Exp

1 Taking a bet

38

Psychol

8 Hayakawa et al. 2019 Q J Exp

1 Taking a bet

52

Psychol

8 Hayakawa et al. 2019 Q J Exp

2 Taking a bet

27

Psychol

8 Hayakawa et al. 2019 Q J Exp

3 Taking a bet

4

Psychol

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 1a Button dilemma

45

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 1b Disable footbridge

60

Learn

dilemma

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 2a Footbridge dilemma

86

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 2b Footbridge dilemma

71

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 3a Footbridge dilemma

164

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 3b Footbridge dilemma

57

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 3c Footbridge dilemma

64

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 3d Hospital dilemma

25

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 3e Injury footbridge dilemma 75 Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 2a Switch dilemma

28

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 2b Switch dilemma

46

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 3a Switch dilemma

22

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 3b Switch dilemma

22

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 3c Switch dilemma

36

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 3d Switch dilemma

42

Learn

9 Corey et al.

2017 J Exp Psychol 3d Terrorist dilemma

66

Learn

10 Cipolletti et al. 2016 Philos Psychol 1 Button dilemma

13

64 29

6 46

10 32

21

4

55 34

36 58

20 60

30 55

34 137

40 40

39 56

68 16

42 60

78 14

152 98

78 25

81 24

64 34

75 33

27 37

60 24

66 37 NA

Polish

13 32 NA

Polish

9 20 NA

Chinese

23 30 NA

Spanish

68 18? University 40 student

43 18? University 40 student

44 18? University 40 student

48 18? University 40 student

64 18? University 40 student

60 18? University 40 student

42 18? University 40 student

66 18? University 40 student

46 18? University 40 student

90 18? University 40 student

103 18? University 40 student

77 18? University 40 student

74 18? University 40 student

67 18? University 40 student

68 18? University 40 student

43 18? University 40 student

56 21.2 University student

Spanish Spanish English Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish English Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish English

English English English English English English Spanish English English English English English English Spanish English English English English English English Spanish

15 5.1 (7) Written DM

18 4.7 (7) Written DM

9 3.7 (7) Written DM

12 3.8 (7) Written DM

6.8 4.5 (7) Written MD

6.5 5.1 (7) Written MD

6.5 5 (7)

Written MD

6.8 4.7 (7) Written MD

7.1 5 (7)

Written MD

6.8 4.7 (7) Written MD

6.5 5 (7)

Written MD

6.1 4.7 (7) Written MD

6.8 4.7 (7) Written MD

6.5 5 (7)

Written MD

7.1 5 (7)

Written MD

6.8 4.5 (7) Written MD

6.5 5 (7)

Written MD

6.5 5.1 (7) Written MD

6.8 4.7 (7) Written MD

6.1 4.75 (7) Written MD

NA NA

Written MD (Continued )

623

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition

 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 1. (Continued.)

ID

Author

Year Journal Exp

Problem

10 Cipolletti et al. 2016 Philos Psychol 2 Footbridge dilemma

10 Cipolletti et al. 2016 Philos Psychol 3 Switch dilemma

11 Muda et al. 12 Brouwer 12 Brouwer 12 Brouwer 12 Brouwer 12 Brouwer 12 Brouwer 12 Brouwer 12 Brouwer 12 Brouwer 12 Brouwer 12 Brouwer 12 Brouwer 13 Costa et al.

2018 J Exp Psychol Learn

2020 Biling-Lang Cogn

2020 Biling-Lang Cogn

2020 Biling-Lang Cogn

2020 Biling-Lang Cogn

2020 Biling-Lang Cogn

2020 Biling-Lang Cogn

2020 Biling-Lang Cogn

2020 Biling-Lang Cogn

2020 Biling-Lang Cogn

2020 Biling-Lang Cogn

2020 Biling-Lang Cogn

2020 Biling-Lang Cogn

2014 Plos One

1 Incongruent-congruent dilemma

1 Crying baby 2 Crying baby 1 Footbridge dilemma 2 Footbridge dilemma 1 Lost wallet 2 Lost wallet 1 Switch dilemma 2 Switch dilemma 1 Taxes 2 Taxes 1 Vitamins 2 Vitamins 1a footbridge dilemma

13 Costa et al.

2014 Plos One

1b Footbridge dilemma

13 Costa et al.

2014 Plos One

1c Footbridge dilemma

13 Costa et al.

2014 Plos One

1d Footbridge dilemma

Nr PP Nr PP Nr PP Nr PP

L1 E

L1 L2 E

L2

UNB

UNB Age Education

L1

27

7 24

22 21.2 University English

student

6

28

9

37 21.2 University English

student

18

65 32

51 20.9 University Polish

student

35

40 36

43 25.5 High

Dutch

education

49

26 35

44 25.5 High

Dutch

education

49

26 22

57 25.5 High

Dutch

education

60

15 65

14 25.5 High

Dutch

education

33

42 37

42 25.5 High

Dutch

education

6

69

6

73 25.5 High

Dutch

education

41

34 43

36 25.5 High

Dutch

education

19

56 26

53 25.5 High

Dutch

education

28

47 36

43 25.5 High

Dutch

education

64

11 49

30 25.5 High

Dutch

education

32

43 22

57 25.5 High

Dutch

education

54

21 48

31 25.5 High

Dutch

education

0

40

8

32 21 University Korean

student

17

44 27

34 21 University English

student

16

37 18

36 21 University English

student

2

16 14

4 21 University Spanish/

student

English

L2 Spanish Spanish English English English English English English English English English English English English English English Spanish French Hebrew

Task Problem AoA Proficiency Modality Type

NA NA

Written MD

NA NA

Written MD

NA > 5 (10) Written MD

9 4 (5)

Oral

MD

9 4 (5)

Written MD

9 4 (5)

Oral

MD

9 4 (5)

Written MD

9 4 (5)

Oral

MD

9 4 (5)

Written MD

9 4 (5)

Oral

MD

9 4 (5)

Written MD

9 4 (5)

Oral

MD

9 4 (5)

Written MD

9 4 (5)

Oral

MD

9 4 (5)

Written MD

14 2.85 (5) Written MD

14 2.85 (5) Written MD

14 2.85 (5) Written MD

14 2.85 (5) Written MD

Nicola Del Maschio et al.

624

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download